Q. Certainly, you were advancing just as fast as you could; but you left security troops or security measures for every place you took?
A. No, that was completely impossible. It was impossible to leave any security troops in such a big area; and so these areas just remained unoccupied. The troops had to go up ahead as a uniform combat unit; and they had to approach the Dniepr in a uniform manner, this including all troops that were available. What remained in between was not the business of the troops. They received the order to advance on such and such a locality, and our destination was at the Dniepr.
Q. I understand all that. Were you in the army during the first war?
A. In the first war I was an officer.
Q. With what outfit were you?
A. I was in the Infantry Regiment von Bayern.
Q. What division?
A. I was in the 1st Division, the 1st Infantry Division.
Q. You stayed in the army after the First World War?
A. Yes, I remained an officer.
Q. Then when did you join the Waffen SS?
A. 1935.
Q. You were transferred as an officer from the Wehrmacht into the Waffen SS?
A. No, I left the army because I had injured my arm a long time before.
Q. Well, when did you leave the army?
A. I left the army on the 1st of January 1934.
Q. You were then out about a year and you joined the Waffen SS?
A. On the 6th or the 10th of May 1945 I entered the Waffen SS as a battalion commander at Erlangen.
Q. You couldn't have entered it in 1945; that was after the war.
A. 1935.
Q. That's what I said. You were out of the Wehrmacht about a year when you went into the Waffen SS?
A. Yes.
Q. What rank did you go in as--as a major?
A. I left the army as a major and was called into the Waffen SS as a lieutenant colonel.
Q. Did you know about the program of the extermination of the Jews as advocated by the SS?
A. I didn't quite understand your question.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Will the interpreter please repeat the question?
(Question repeated by interpreter.)
A. Of the extermination program of the Jews nothing came to my knowledge. In peace-time this matter was never discussed nor were any steps taken to that effect. Nothing could lead me to conclude that the SS was exterminating Jews. It is very painful to me but during war-time I heard that these things happened when we were engaged in combat with the enemy. Between us and the perpetrators of these regrettable and painful things there was a very big distance.
Q. Are you in custody now or are you free?
A. I am in custody. I am a British prisoner of war.
Q. Have you been indicted by the British?
A. No, I have not been indicted.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q. General, I don't think it is of any great consequence, but perhaps you erred when you said you joined the Waffen SS in 1935. The Waffen SS had not come into being in 1935, had it?
A. No, the SS Special Duty Squads existed at the time.
Q. The Waffen SS came into being in 1939 in the Polish campaign.
A. Yes, it was activated in 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken. ) -7247
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, will you put on the earphones. When did you join the General-SS, witness?
A. I did not belong to the Allgemeine -SS.
Q. When did you join the Party, the Nazi Party?
A. In 1937, collectively, within the scope of my unit.
Q. And do I understand your testimony to be that at no time while you were in the SS that you heard lectures on racial doctrines to the members of the troops?
A. I did not hear such lectures, as the commanding officer of the troops. We were not expected to listen to things like that.
Q. Do you know that such lectures were given to the troops?
A. In the unit in peacetime we had what we called a man in charge of the training; that officer gave lectures, which were about a variety of topics; not as you say that they were lectures on racial doctrines.
Q. I am just asking you if there were any lectures on racial theories?
A. Yes, I am sure that there were, quite sure.
Q. And were there lectures on anti-Jewish doctrines?
A. No, I personally as a matter of principle refused to attend any such thing. I said myself that a persecution of a Jewish Nation I would refute, for from my intimate feelings-
Q. You say that you refused to attend them, but did you know that they were given, do you not?
A. I think it is possible, yes. We had not any definite plan within the special task units. That was entirely up to the training man in charge of the training.
Q. Witness, you told us that you heard about excesses while you were in Russia.
During any of these excesses were any of the civilian population killed?
A. Of what excesses are you talking about now?
Q. You told us that you had heard of a number of excesses by the SS, also by members of your Division, didn't you?
A. No members of the civilian population were ever killed. I really don't understand your question, because it is the truth these troops were not fighting the civilian population, but we fought against the enemy.
Q. Witness, you said that there were a number of court martials within your Division because of excesses against the civilian population. I am asking you were any civilians killed in the course of those excesses?
A. No civilian was killed off. The excesses I was talking about were concerned with violations of property, of the enemy population. For instance --
Q. That is sufficient. You state that the excesses dealt only with the property, and it is your testimony ---
A. Yes, excesses against the property.
Q. And it is your testimony that you never heard of any killing of the civilian population by members of the SS, is that correct?
A. Naturally, in the course of a campaign excesses against property, and other things did take place. Never did troops kill any member of the civilian population.
Q. And your testimony is that members of the SS did not participate in killings of the Jews. Do you know that from your own knowledge? Is that correct?
A. I did not fully understand your question. Would you please repeat it, it is very difficult for me.
Q. I understand your testimony to be that you know from your own knowledge that members of the SS did not participate in killings or Jews, or of any of the civilian population?
A. What I know is that my Division fought the enemy and not the enemy civilian population, and that every excess of any type, which was an offense under the penal code of the German Reich was dealt with by court martial in the Waffen-SS, when it reached the knowledge of a superior officer.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is not answer to the question at all. Put the question.
BY MR. ROBBINS: You just listen to my question and try to give me a direct answer. Is it your testimony that members of the SS, the WaffenSS, did not participate in the killings of Jews and the Civilian Population?
A. I think it is entirely out of the question that combat units took part in these things.
Q. Witness, if the documents of the Einsatzgruppen, officially captured documents, should show that units of the Waffen-SS did participate with the Einsatzgruppen, would you be surprised at that?
A. The units of the Waffen-SS had nothing to do with the Einsatzgruppen, neither organizationally nor personally. They had no idea of them and knew nothing of what they were doing. Last year here in Nurnberg I heard that some officers of the S Waffen-SS, a small, minute minority, had been ordered, that in fact, some of them had been misused. Nobody can protect themselves against that.
Q. So you have heard that members of the Waffen-SS did participate with the Einsatzgruppen?
A. I heard it last year here in Nurnberg, during the trial when the Einsatzgruppen was discussed.
Q. Is it your testimony, witness, that the Viking Division did not use the civilian population as laborers, and that they did not employ Jews?
A. Again I have not understood your question. Do you mean the "SS" or the Waffen-SS?
Q. I am talking now about the Viking Division?
A. The Viking Division did not employ any civilian workers at all.
Q. Excuse me, that includes the slaughtering houses, the bakery units, and all the supply troops, is that correct?
A. I don't believe that the supply units had civilian employees.
Q. Witness, if proof in this case should show Jews did in fact work in the slaughtering houses, would that fact surprise you?
A. The Butcher Company, of course, I don't know too much about them, was Working in the field, that is at the front, and at very short notice, and these units at various localities, and then from there they would follow the advancing units at great speed, therefore, never settling down anywhere, it, therefore, was not able to employ civilian labor, and it is quite impossible for them to do that.
Q. How close was Fanslau and Tschentscher's troops to you as you were advancing?
A. Tschentscher was never near our units, because he was busy at the rear with his division. Fanslau on the whole was linked with the quartermaster general; he was the liaison with the I-B, between the fighting units and the combat units, and the supply unit had on several occasions to be close; he was at a distance of forty to thirty kilometers from my units. On certain occasions, Fanslau together with B-I of the quartermaster came to me and reported briefly. Of course, when you advanced fast, this happened only very briefly and infrequently, and the quartermaster general usually came every second day.
Q. Now how far behind your troops was Tschentscher usually?
A. Tschentscher was at a distance from my battle headquarters of the Division, that is, of course, I would say the first foremost speerhead, about eighty kilometers.
Q. And it was Fanslau task to act as liaison man between the supply units and your battle headquarters of the Division?
A. Fanslau was responsible for the whole of the supplies of the Division, the food and the clothing. He also had the official supervision of the pay.
Q. Excuse me. I am just asking you about liaison now. Had he carried out the liaison between the supply and the battle headquarters, is that right?
A. Yes, quite; he had to fetch the orders.
Q. And he had to travel between the supply units and the headquarters a good deal, did he not?
A. Almost every second day, or in some cases every day he had to inform himself with I-B about the intentions of the Division, that means marching route, Etc., and on that depended the further supplies to the units to be established.
Q. Excuse me. I am asking you about his traveling. Did he travel a good deal between the supply units and the battle headquarters?
A. Almost every day, or every second day, at least.
Q. You told us about atrocities that you heard of at Tarnopol, and, you said that you heard that they were committed by the Ukrainian population, and, that you ordered an investigation, and found that none of the Viking Division was in Tarnopol at the time these atrocities occurred?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. What I said was that the Division had not the possibility to do anything of that sort, because they were outside of Tarnopol.
A. Witness, how far outside of Tarnopol were they?
A The division had been divided into various fighting unit. I must give you all the examples. Otherwise, you won't understand. The Ninth Armored Division went straight ahead, pursuing the enemy. The Viking Division followed as the second fighting unit on the left and right of Tarnopol and occupied and secured the forests, particularly to the south and southeast, because there the area was still unoccupied by German units. That is the reason why the unit was at a distance of about six kilometers outside Tarnopol, and a small part--a battalion perhaps--one kilometer-to the southwest, the others had completely disengaged themselves from the town.
Q Then it is not true then that the Viking Division was not within the area of tarnopol; they were very close to Tarnopol, were they not?
A No, the Viking Division was at a wide radius around Tarnopol, with various tactical orders.
Q And some of them as close as one kilometer?
A That was a small unit directed towards the southwest. They had disengaged themselves from the town in order to do their job there.
Q Do you know that the supply units stayed at Tarnopol from eight to ten days?
A I don't think that can be right, because the division went form Tarnopol on the next day after their arrival to the former Russian frontier. There it had an engagement with the enemy that lasted for two days. Then it went on to the south via Proskurowsk, through the forest north of Proskurowsk toward Zhitomir, and the pursuing units of course, followed up immediately behind them. The supply units, therefore can not have been in Tarnopol for more than two or three days.
Q Well, witness, if the proof should show that during those two or three, days, around the 5th of July when these atrocities occurred would that fact surprise you?
A I didn't follow that question. It is very difficult for me.
Q If the proof should show that during the two or three days that the supply units were at Tarnopol, around the 5th of July, 1941, and that during those days, the atrocities against the civilian population occurred, I asked you if that fact would surprise you.
A It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that at all. Hardly possible at all, in fact, that officers like Tschentscher and Fanslau, who after all were in command of those troops, who were always obedient and orderly soldiers, that those of all people should have deviated from the orders and become insubordinate in this point on which I particularly laid emphasis. I also believe that my B-I, my former regimental adjutant who was a very close friend of mine and who entirely shared my views, that he would not have reported this to me--I can't imagine that. That would have been a very grave impossibility on his part.
Q If atrocities had been committed by the troops under Tschents and Fanslau, I take it that you would consider yourself responsible for those crimes, would you not?
A I would have immediately done something about that. I would have put the commanding officer of the company before the next court martial.
Q Excuse me I asked you if today you would not consider yourself responsible for those crimes having been committed in your division.
A I think it is impossible that crimes did take place.
Q Did you hear about any excesses at Stelotzow, any atrocities that were committed there?
A I have heard nothing about it--that any German unit should have committed any atrocities; I think it is entirely out of the question.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: any other questions by Defense Counsel?
EXAMINATION BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q General, I would like to hear you on the difference between a man who gives orders to the troops and the man who is in charge of the area geographically.
A The man who is in charge of the troops uses his troops according to a specific operational order. All he is concerned with is his competent duty within an extremely narrowly drawn scope. He is not responsible for any are beyond ten kilometers in depth, and otherwise he is simply to prevent that the enemy achieves a breakthrough. Behind that area the corps area and the army area to the roar begin, which do not go beyond the area of 100 kilometers from the foremost front line. In that area you have the military commanders, or whatever you may call them.
Q Were you ever in charge of the area, geographically speaking?
A No. My tasks were only strategic and operational ones.
Q What about Fanslau.
A He belonged to the troop, and nowhere did he have to fulfill territorial tasks. He did not even have the task of local commander, because that was not part of his duty.
Q How many kilometers did you advance per day as an average?
A It depended on the military situation of the day. When we did this quick encircling march with our motorized unit, we did 100 or 150 kilometers.
Q During the day?
A Yes, during the day, and during the nights, these enormous motorized advanced sometimes stopped also, of course, When one had contacted the enemy, one had to fight him, which stopped the division. The division would go forward an area of about 30 or 40 kilometers.
Q Now, if it has been established that in a town through which you had marched, a few days later considerable atrocities have occurred, are you militarily speaking, still responsible for that town?
A In no sense whatever. I am responsible only for my troops. For the town itself the territorial commanders will be responsible, inasmuch as they are there.
Q The territorial commanders followed, did they?
A Yes, they followed, but in between there were all the supply columns, which were very large units. You always had this advance behind the very fast units of at least 60, 80, or 100 kilometers.
Q And you yourself a few days after the advance might possibly be at a distance of seven hundred kilometers?
A Certainly.
Q Without any responsibility for the area in your rear?
A Without any responsibility and contact with the rear.
Q You said just now that the defendant Fanslau was the liaison man between the staff and the supply column. Did he always do that personally, or did he use for that purpose couriers, orderlies, and so forth?
A Obersturmbannfuehrer Fanslau had to inform IB daily about the supply situation. Moreover, he had to find out from him daily what the intentions were for the next day, which is the reason he saw I-B daily, unless he sent along a representative, which was also possible. With the staff he had to be there daily.
Q And did he always take care of the supply column?
A No, sometimes he would do it through his adjutant or his driver, of somebody.
DR. STAKELBERG: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further examination be the Prosecution? The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
MR. ROBBINS: May I continue with the presentation of documents at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other witnesses waiting to be heard?
DR. STAKELBERG: May it please the Court, the witness Maier has not arrived yet; the witness Martin Maier has not yet reached Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he a free witness?
DR. STAKELBERG: No. He is in a camp, and arrangements have been made to bring him here.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the camp, please?
DR. STAKELBERG: The camp Sandbostel, near Fallingbostel which is not very far from Hanover.
THE PRESIDENT: In the British Zone?
DR. STAKELBERG: I believe so, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he started yet; do you know?
DR. STAKELBERG: I have heard that Miss Bindford has rung up the camp and also sent telegrams and that every promise has been given that he will be sent down as quickly as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we want to know what "as quickly as possible" means, you see.
DR. STAKELBERG: Yes, Your Honor, immediately after this session I shall once again find out from Miss Bendford whether she has had some news, and perhaps, if I may, I shall tell the Court Tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now, what other witnesses do you plan on?
DR. STAKELBERG: Very probably I shall not be able to produce any more witnesses, because the other two, Stolk******* Wohler, can not be found.
THE PRESIDENT: What about other Counsel? Dr. Pribilla?
DR. PRIBILLA: No more.
DR. STAKELBERG: But I believe that Dr. Bergold still wants to call some witnesses.
DR. HAENSEL: I have Hans Fritzsche.
THE PRESIDENT: Better arrange to have him first thing in the morning, Dr. Haensel.
DR. HAENSEL: Perhaps in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you talked to him?
DR. HAENSEL: This evening.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Plan to call him as a witness sometime tomorrow then. Well, that is two witnesses, and possibly Dr. Bergold's.
DR. HEIM: I have the defendant Hohberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to put him on now?
DR. HEIM: Tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: I know, but tomorrow afternoon' is getting shorter every minute. Why cant you put him on now? You know what you want to ask him. Will that be all right?
DR. HEIM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Fine.
WHEREUPON DEFENDANT HOHBERG was recalled to the witness stand and was examined and testified as follows.
DR. HEIM: For the Defendant Hohberg. With the Court's permission, I shall ask the defendant Hohberg to take the witness stand. I would like to remind you, witness, that you are still under oath.
If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution have produced new documents, some of which concern the defendant Hohberg.
I must ask the defendant about seven questions. It should take about twenty minutes. There is one difficulty, Your Honor. As the prosecution have not yet completely submitted its documents, I should be grateful if I were given the opportunity of having the witness comment on the documents of the Prosecution, even if those documents have not been offered yet in evidence.
THe PRESIDENT: That is all right.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no objections.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness in Document Book 28, witness, the Prosecution have offered document 1037. It is roughly in the last third of the document book. It is a letter by you Pohl, and it concerns the increase in capital in the DWB. In that document under 7, reference is made to Reich Treasury vouchers which came from moneys in Dachau. The impression might arise.
that in the case of Dachau moneys they are moneys from the concentration camp Dachau, which would have been immediately connected with inmate labor. I would like to ask you to tell the Court briefly what is meant by 'Dachau moneys".
A When the sites on which barracks were standing were sold in Dachau to the German Reich, which was done by Obergruppenfuehrer Frank, a turnover of RM 12,000,000 was obtained. I had nothing to do with that, but this is what Frank told me. Of that amount six millions were branched off under two separate headings and transferred to a trustee account, Dachau I and Dachau II. Those moneys from Accounts I and II were then, by Pohl's order, used to increase the capital of the DWB. The term "Dachau moneys" therefore has nothing to do with concentration camps. It is purely money made out of the sale of the site of the barracks.
Q In the same document book 28 of the Prosecution, further back, there is Document No. 1267. This is a letter by you addressed to the OSTI, attention of SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Horn. In that letter you request Dr. Horn to contact the Dresdner Bank in the Government General. I would like to ask you about that. Was this letter addressed to the OSTI?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Dr. Heim, until we find it. We haven't found the exhibit.
DR. HEIM: It is Document NO-1267.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Is this letter to the Osti the result of an official contact or activity for that company, or what was the reason why you wrote the letter at that time?
A In my profession, it is a professional instruction that we must not indulge in any propaganda. For that reason, it is a matter of course that you contact the directors of big banks and so forth, if possible. That is the reason why I had this regular contact with Professor Meyer, with whom I had lunch every two or three months. Professor Meyer, as a member of the Board of the Dresdner Bank, had asked me to see to it, as far as I had any influence, that now companies which were supervised by Pohl should contact the Dresdner Bank or its affiliated companies for banking purposes; and I did this favor for Professor Meyer by writing the letter. I believe a second firm is mentioned there too. Whether they contacted the subsidiary company of the Dresdner Bank in Cracow, I don't know.
Q I am now referring to Book 29 of the Prosecution, the last but one document in that book. The number is NO 4441. This is a memorandum by Dr. Wenner, and it concerns SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Firlich. In that memorandum it is alleged that you had promised Hauptsturmfuehrer Firlich increased salary. Were you in a position on your own to increase a man's salary, a man who was one of your auditors?
A Yes, I was in a position to do so, because I could ask Pohl or the Prokurist of the DWB to do so. I could not give the instruction, but one could assume that if I described the conditions to Pohl, he would on his own give permission. It becomes clear from this letter that Firlich had asked me some months before to have his fees increased.
I did not do so then, because the last three or four months of my work I did not work there so often, us to give me a chance to do so.
Q What is your explanation for the fact that in this letter Wenner says "Chief of Staff W, Auditor Dr. Hohberg"?
A That is really the first time that Wenner used this term, because Wenner knew all about this struggle for this so-called designation, and he knew very well how I was opposed to it. In this case I could not oppose it because when the letter had been drawn up, I had left some considerable time previously. Perhaps he wanted to give expression more to his own wishes; I don't know.
Q In the same document book 29, there is document NO 3925, which is the first document. This is a letter by you addressed to the Finance Office, Boerse, Berlin, and it concerns the company taxation certificate of 9 September 1942. In that letter you describe the organization of the DAW, or the so-called W-Enterprises, in a way that contradicts the one given during the course of this trial. Will you please clear up that contradiction?
A It is not a contradiction.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, is it DAW or DWB?
DR. HEIM: DAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The translation is DWB, which is an entirely different company.
THE WITNESS: May I say something about those two companies.
THE PRESIDENT: I know all about the two companies. It is the book that -- In the book you speak about the German Equipment Works, DAW.
A This letter I took myself to the DAW works, and it was changed by them and passed on. That is why I made this remark.
On direct examination I have described that the so-called SS enterprises were undoubtedly, at the beginning, enterprises of the Party, and only when capital was increased on several cases did they become Reich enterprises, because for Capital Increases Reich money was used, without a doubt.
Under German taxation law there is the principle that you make contracts not with a retrospective effect. Here we are concerned with a taxation certificate for a company taxation process which occurred on the 4th of November, 1940. The whole description in that letter has been adjusted to the legal status of 4 November 1940 and in that particular moment, in 1940, there was the DWB concern still a Party enterprise without a doubt, because the SS was not a property bearer of its own. It was much later, in 1942, that the DWB concern became a Reich concern by having used Reich funds. Is that clear now?
Q In a document book which they submitted today, namely, 32 the Prosecution have offered Document No. 3785. It is Document Book 32. It is on the thirteenth page of that document book, where we find Document NO-3785. This is a letter -- page thirteen of the German document book, Document NO-3785.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: 3786.
THE PRESIDENT: Right after that, the next one. We have it.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q This is a letter by you addressed to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Klein of 17 November 1940. Why is that document headed "Chief of VUW Main-Office, Dr. Hohberg?
A I have described on direct examination that Pohl had asked me for internal communications within the enterprises not to use my own private note paper but as a principle put the initials "ST/W". This letter is connected with the one before it which I would ask to look at because there my name forms the letter heading.
Herr Klein had accused me of having interfered in matters connected with the Lobkowitz affair. I, therefore, asked Klein to tell me what he meant. Klein did not answer at all. I sent him a second letter and it says at the bottom, "May I ask you to reply to my previous letter?" and there it seems a letter was taken with that letter heading.
My personal note paper was never used, always empty ones. It would not have been possible otherwise, but the secretary simply took the next bit-
THE PRESIDENT: This isn't important, Dr. Heim. Nobody claims that Hohberg was ever chief of the Main Economic and Administrative Office or that he was a deputy.
DR. HEIM: The impression might arise on the basis of the letter heading that Hohberg perhaps was the deputy of the Chief of the "W" Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody ever claimed that at all.
MR. ROBBINS: I might say that the reason that these documents were put in concerns the confiscation of Lobkowitz property, and we are expecting momentarily a confirmation from the Czechoslovakian Government that this confiscation was ultimately consumated.
DR. HEIM: Shall I clear up that point about the visit with Dr. Richter?
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, you have heard that the Prosecution wishes to prove with this document that you were concerned with the seizure and confiscation of foreign property. What did you discuss with Dr. Richter concerning the Lobkowitz affair?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, what was the Lobkowitz property?
THE WITNESS: The Lobkowitz property was the property of a big Czech estate owner, and his property had been put under control. I myself never carried out any negotations in the Lobkowitz matter. This becomes clear from the previous letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Lobkowitz was a rich Czechoslovak Jew, wasn't he?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose property had been -- what did you call it?
THE WITNESS: Had been put under control.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, yes, put under control. Under whose control?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I never -- probably by the RSHA.